Hi all,

I understand both (Skylight and UV filters) are generally designed to cut out UV/Blue day light from your images. I have also read that UV filters are only cutting UV light (invisible Blue) but Skylight filters can cut a bit of the visible blue light. I guess my question is: Has anyone settled on either one as an all purpose protection for their XM2 lens?

More importantly, has anyone seen any effects in shooting with these filters indoors?... If not, I am guessing either one would make a good all round lens protector.

Regards,
Jack

I guess you want either one or the other. A UV is usually what's recommended for indoors and out. If you're shooting mainly outdoors in good sunlight, I find a skylight slightly better. However, a good combination would be to get a UV and a polarizer.

However, keep in mind that a filter is more glass, thus more chances for stray reflection, flare, etc, especially with low cost filters. And given the great depth of field, any dust on the filter will be more visible in the image.

I consider Hoya and Cokin "cheaper filters." So far I have not had ghosting nor flaring with them, but I get both with my "expensive" Heliopan UV slim in the 43mm thread size. Strange, huh.

Skylight filters have a slight magenta color cast. It may effect skin tones adversely, but the color can be corrected in your NLE.

Thanx for all the replies...

I have done quite a bit of research now, and from what I can see; using filters is really a personal choice... some use them all the time whether it be for protection or the look, and some use them only when they need to.

I guess the best things is to use them in real life to see what looks good and what doesn't, and what is practical and not. On the side of protecting, I guess a UV filter is probably fine for all situations as some of you indicate.

Cheers,
Jack

This article over at Photo.net (http://www.photo.net/equipment/filters/) is quite interesting and may shed some light on the choice of UV filters for your camera.

To add a few more points -

It all depends on what you are using the filters for. If you truly want UV blocking then the photo.net article referenced is interesting. If you are looking for protection then it may not matter.

For those of you who think that care will keep you from needing to put a $20 piece of glass on an expensive lens - you must not shoot outdoors very much. Case in point, while videoing a small geyser feature at Yellowstone a freak gust of wind blew small droplets onto the filter. We were at a distance adequate under normal conditions to avoid contact with the water but the wind said otherwise. If this were normal water, no problem. However, the geyser water ruined the filter and would have ruined the lens had it not been protected.

If you are going to be videoing near the ocean you have to be aware that salt water can damage many lens coatings - be they camera or filter. For videoing near the ocean I use an uncoated filter if I can get away with it.

I recently came back from a river trip with my gl2. I am obsessively careful and keep my gear in a big pelican case. Sometime mid trip I realized my camera had a spot on the filter and I tried to clean it but it was a nick on the filter. Sand in the wind...who knows. But it would have ruined my lens. That was good, cheap insurance. Just don't use cheap filters. If I used my camera indoors under well controlled conditions I would probably pass on the filter but if you use it outdoor at all...

I noticed that the GL2 has a piece of protective glass in front of the lens that is not part of the actual lens itself. I often find problems using an additional filter because of the great depth of field (dust, lens flair, etc) that aren't as great without the filter because the built-in protective glass is set further back. If this glass is damages does anyone know how hard and expensive it is to replace?